verify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the underlying forge command and API key requirements, but fails to disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., network errors), or verification process details (e.g., polling, retries). The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences that cover the core purpose and key distinction (API key requirement). However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for different verifiers) without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main verification flow but lacks details on return values, verification success/failure indicators, and error handling. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented. The tool description adds minimal extra context (e.g., verifier URLs, API key requirement). The baseline is 3 since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying a deployed contract on a block explorer. It specifies the verb 'verify', the resource 'deployed contract', and supports specific explorers (Etherscan, zkSync Explorer). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'deploy' or 'compile'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions that Etherscan requires an API key while zkSync Explorer does not, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.